Originally posted by dj2beckerNot all bangs 'cause destruction'. Of course it does depend on what you mean by destruction. Your car runs on bangs. The typical phenomena refered to as a bang is nothing more than a short loud sound which could be cause by any number of things including violent chemical reactions, or colisions of objects among others.
So all other bangs cause destruction, but this particular bang of yours apparently creates the universe out of nothing?
What is refered to by scientists as "The big bang" is a totaly different phenomena, with the only real similarity to the typical explosive type of 'bang' being expansion.
I dont think anyone claims to fully understand the physics surrounding the initial point in time but there is cirtainly no reason to assume that anything was "created" or that there existed a prior time with "nothing". There is no reason to assume that the universe has an edge either in space or time. Your belief in the requirement for a creation is very similar to belief in a flat earth necessitating an edge that you can fall off. Once you understand that the earth is a sphere the requirement for the earth to be on the back of a great turtle goes away.
Originally posted by David CActually, he gave a perfect example of the position. He obviously knows that there is something wrong with murder, and juxtaposed murder with (apparent) benevolence for greater emphasis.
"Exactly" nothing. He's just demonstrated you are wrong.
But what makes murder in this (or any) situation wrong? If is is all chance, what difference does the murder make? Desires are all equal in the fight for survival. Further, why fight? In the scheme of things, nothing matters.
Originally posted by twhiteheadGods laws, judgements, system of values etc is not in any way 'superior' to any other system.
Just because you cannot understand it, does not make it nonsense.
However your belief in God, or even the actual existence of God would not somehow solve your dilema. Gods laws, judgements, system of values etc is not in any way 'superior' to any other system. And why exactly does it matter to a theist that they follow these laws etc? There is no 'mean ...[text shortened]... , any suffering you recieve does not 'matter' so why do you still try to avoid it?
I believe they have been demonstrated as being vastly superior to any other system, as they are closer to the original source... all others borrow in one degree or another from truth.
If you as a theist have this fantastic 'scale of values upon which to base everything' then why do you still sin?
Inside agent is tough.
And why exactly does it matter to a theist that they follow these laws etc?
God's promises, for one.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHEven assuming there exists such a thing as an 'original source' it doesnt explain how it is superior. 'superior' is a relative word and realtives can never be absolute.
I believe they have been demonstrated as being vastly superior to any other system, as they are closer to the original source... all others borrow in one degree or another from truth.
God's promises, for one.
You missed the point. Why do you want the benefit of Gods promises? It doesnt matter whether you go to heaven or hell.
For there to be a 'reason' for following this 'absolute scale' you invented, there must be an even more absolute scale which necessitates the following of the 'absolute scale.' Or maybe we just follow it by chance?
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
Originally posted by David CSome people love their neighbours and other people eat their neighbours, based purely on their feelings. Do you have a personal preference?
We think, therefore we are. We are, therefore we feel. The fact that we consider the murder of an innocent child to be wrong does not require that we have a "creator" or some arbitrary concept of a higher power.
Originally posted by dj2beckerVery true. (Though 'feelings' doesnt quite feel like the right word, its a bit deeper psychologically than that, more like instinct)
Some people love their neighbours and other people eat their neighbours, based purely on their feelings. Do you have a personal preference?
However the behavorial tendancies of human beings fits within the predictions of the Theory of Evolution but is extremely hard to explain when using the concept of God.
Similar patterns can be seen amoungst other living things and whether or not one eats ones neighbour seems to be strongly related to the evolutionary benefits of doing so.
Other common behaviour (sex for example) also shows the halmarks of evolution but makes no sense from a theological point of view. (God interfered with mans promised free will by ensuring he had a natural tendancy to sin)
Originally posted by twhiteheadIt's not about superiority or anything remotely like that.
Just because you cannot understand it, does not make it nonsense.
However your belief in God, or even the actual existence of God would not somehow solve your dilema. Gods laws, judgements, system of values etc is not in any way 'superior' to any other system. And why exactly does it matter to a theist that they follow these laws etc? There is no 'mean ...[text shortened]... , any suffering you recieve does not 'matter' so why do you still try to avoid it?
It just this: God created all things, and not to believe in Him would be against YOUR
own heart. God made you and etched his laws upon your heart. You have to decided
whether or not to live a right life or a wrong life.
God has a plan for you, and ammanion, and Scott and the rest of us.
Yes, there is a difference between whether you go to Heaven or hell:
One is quite hotter than the other.
Seriously, if you went to hell you wouldn't be there for one or two days.
YOU'D BE THERE FOR ETERNITY.
Think of this way:
After you read this try this simple exercise:
Go into a room in your house/apartment/dorm room
Turn the lights off
Close your eyes so you can see no light
Hold your ears so no sound can get in
You will get a feeling of despair.
That's just one instant.
If you spent eternity in hell it would:
BE FOREVER.
Originally posted by NosracClearly, the main motivation for your worship is fear and not love,
It's not about superiority or anything remotely like that.
It just this: God created all things, and not to believe in Him would be against YOUR
own heart. God made you and etched his laws upon your heart. You have to decided
whether or not to live a right life or a wrong life.
God has a plan for you, and ammanion, and Scott and the rest of us. ...[text shortened]... spair.
That's just one instant.
If you spent eternity in hell it would:
BE FOREVER.
and, so, you've learned nothing from Christianity.
Nemesio
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadThe question was, what is your personal preference?
Very true. (Though 'feelings' doesnt quite feel like the right word, its a bit deeper psychologically than that, more like instinct)
However the behavorial tendancies of human beings fits within the predictions of the Theory of Evolution but is extremely hard to explain when using the concept of God.
Similar patterns can be seen amoungst other living th ...[text shortened]... ew. (God interfered with mans promised free will by ensuring he had a natural tendancy to sin)
So how exactly does the TOE explain that some people love their neighbours and other people eat them based purely on their own feelings?
The point you don't seem to get is that when you use feelings to establish what is right and wrong, it all boils down to personal preference. Thus there cannot be any absolute moral standard.
Your theological knowledge is obviously very rusty.
Originally posted by twhitehead...it doesnt explain how it is superior.
Even assuming there exists such a thing as an 'original source' it doesnt explain how it is superior. 'superior' is a relative word and realtives can never be absolute.
[b]God's promises, for one.
You missed the point. Why do you want the benefit of Gods promises? It doesnt matter whether you go to heaven or hell.
For there to be a 'reason' for ...[text shortened]... ssitates the following of the 'absolute scale.' Or maybe we just follow it by chance?[/b]
The original source infers creator of reality, maker of truth. Whatever characteristics that creator posseses would necessarily be the standard. One cannot create something greater than oneself. Everything following the origin is a take-off of the same.
'superior' is a relative word and realtives can never be absolute.
Superior is its position in relation to the copies. The relational aspect is the assessment of one standard compared to another, the first standard being the complete and whole (and therefore, absolute) truth. The second standard is one based upon the first, with varying degrees of distinction. To the degree that the second standard agrees with the first determines the level of validity.
That any standard deviates from the first in no way diminishes the absolute-ness of the first. Instead, those distinctions serve as indictments against the standard in question, rendering them 'relative.'
It doesnt matter whether you go to heaven or hell.
I maintain the opposite. I wish very much to be in the presence of the creator of the universe for all of my days. Not being in His presence would be, well, hell.
Originally posted by David CBut if we begin with chance as the force, meaning is gone and worship is negated. There is nothing to worship, no need for legacy. All is meaningless. That an atheist could say:
We think, therefore we are. We are, therefore we feel. The fact that we consider the murder of an innocent child to be wrong does not require that we have a "creator" or some arbitrary concept of a higher power.
"The beauty is that there is no purpose, so enjoy this life to the fullest," or some such is patently absurd. If there be no purpose, then what is there to enjoy? What is beauty? If pleasure is all, then what is the difference between good and evil?
Originally posted by dj2beckerThe theory of evolution explains the diversity of life on earth. It is not a universal theory of everything.
The question was, what is your personal preference?
So how exactly does the TOE explain that some people love their neighbours and other people eat them based purely on their own feelings?
The point you don't seem to get is that when you use feelings to establish what is right and wrong, it all boils down to personal preference. Thus there cannot be any absolute moral standard.
Your theological knowledge is obviously very rusty.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHBecause we choose to live in a society.
Actually, he gave a perfect example of the position. He obviously knows that there is something wrong with murder, and juxtaposed murder with (apparent) benevolence for greater emphasis.
But what makes murder in this (or any) situation wrong? If is is all chance, what difference does the murder make? Desires are all equal in the fight for survival. Further, why fight? In the scheme of things, nothing matters.